Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter in translation series


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete all. Proto :: ►  11:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter in translation series

 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)

delete together with its sub-articles these lists of potterisms translated into all foreign langauges. This fancruft really went blown way out of proportions here. Why don't they do this in appropriate fandom sites? Is there any potter-wiki around? `'mikka 03:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC) I would first draw attention to comments made the last time this was debated []. Having done that, i would draw attention to the irony that these lists represent one of the best collections of such information I have seen, and thus a unique contribution to the very wide field of general interest in the subject of Harry potter. Most of our content on Hp, while informative, is not unique. From the scholarly point of view this actually represents a resource as an example of how concepts in one book have been translated into different languages. So, as I say, an irony that people should seek to delete it as 'fancruft'. Well, yes, perhaps that is exactly how the work of university professors of literature ought to be described.
 * Delete completely pointless-- C  J   King  03:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all as unnecessary lists. YechielMan 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. I added two articles to this nomination. MER-C 05:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment These articles need separate nominations. John Reaves 06:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, John, articles closely linked that would presumably have similar outcomes can be AfD'd together. But if you think one should stay, for instance, say so. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just think it's cumbersome to vote for seperate article on one page. Though I suppose I go ahead and vote here.  John Reaves 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would think it it would be cumbersome to vote for separate articles all dealing with the same thing on multiple pages. Anyway… :-) --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all Even as a member of the WP:Harry I endorse this deletion. This is something which should be left to a few external links in the Harry Potter article. And there is a harrypotter but it's not very closely maintained… I'd also like to urge people not to go out of control with the fan-hatin', as usually happens in an HP AfD… just keep to Keep, Delete or whatever, and leave the "überfancruftism" extremes out of it. :-) Just a friendly comment to keep things within reason here. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are some interesting points Sandpiper made. The information is scholarly, sure, but I just don't think it belongs all in one article. How about merge the information into each appropriate article and then delete? --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all Delete as unnecessary lists, not fancruft. The translations are listed in a sidebar in the article.  Translations aren't something fans rave about on the internet- so not fancruft. John Reaves 06:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, unnecessary lists. RHB 10:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all as similar lists to the one nominated here --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete all unnessesary. —dima/s-ko/ 19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all There is no reason why there should be an article for all these. TSO1D 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The other specific importance of (parts) of these pages was to the ongoing puzzle set by Rowling at the end of the most recent book, as to the identity of a character known solely as RAB. The cross referencing of characters names in different languages is one of the more important, and officially verifiable, ways of eliminating candidates (by having the wrong translated initials).


 * Keep. Sandpiper 02:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Belongs to Wiktionary. --Muhaha 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary, these can probably make some kind of appendix or concordance. Kappa 11:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki note that these almost certainly will not go in the en.wikt main namespace, they would make excellent appendicies. And the main article about Harry Potter in translation can then refer to the wikt appendicies. Robert Ullmann 12:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Given that Kappa is an admin on that project I trust his judgment that Wiktionary can find a way of handeling this page. I only know the original and the Norwegian translations and these lists are kind of interesting but not very encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I suspect we'll be adding them back in a year or two as the fan literature accumulates. DGG 06:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If this information is wanted out of Wikipedia, and either deleted or transwiki'd, I hope you have enough faith in editors who monitor Harry Potter pages to keep this information out if necessary. :-) Let's not put that kind of attitude into making the decision now -- this is for the present, not the future. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The pages have been transwikied to the Harry Potter Wiki. John Reaves 07:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * harrypotter appears to be one huge copyright violation (a derivative work with no transformative value) and its existance should be ignored. --SmokeyJoe 03:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What are trying to say exactly? There's no copyright violation.  John Reaves 04:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to say: The existance of information at harrypotter is not a reason to delete it from wikipedia. I further criticise harrypotter as not being a suitable repositiory for information because I see it containing a substantial amount of material that at any time could be removed because it is a copyright violation.  Much of the material (not every page) is a copyright violation because it is a direct derivative of Rowling's work, without transformative merit such as commentary, and it diminishes her ability to profit by publishing her own "guide to the universe of Harry Potter".  --SmokeyJoe 07:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No one has proposed that its existence at the HP Wiki is a reason for deletion. Please provide a few links to what you believe to be copyright violation on my talkpage. John Reaves 07:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge If this information can be made accesible without being cumbersome, then retain it: either by merging it into other articles, or, more likely, keeping the article itself. Michaelsanders 12:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mikka is wrong. This is not fandom. It is real world information. CJ King is wrong. The point is to record the international reach of the world’s most popular literature series. YechielMan is wrong. The lists are needed as a resource for subsequent improvement Fbv65edel: The existence of information outside wikipedia is no reason to remove that information from wikipedia.. What is the point of “merge”? The question is “delete”. Yes or no. John Reaves, like Mikka is wrong in that the information is not ficticious, fantasy speculative creation. It is real world information. It is data that should be allowed to evolve from a draft into a good article. Muhaha is wrong. Most of the information does not belong in a dictionary. Kappa; Robert Ullmann; Sjakkalle: By “Transwiki” I assume you mean “do not delete”. Agreed, the information has worth, even if it looks like appendix data at the moment. DGG: Agree. It is easy to see future use of the information. I also note that the page is almost two years old. Lets not be hasty. You should assume that every contributor also agrees in the worth of the page. --SmokeyJoe 00:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep.
 * Why is my name mentioned here? This post doesn't address anything I said.  John Reaves 04:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies, John. I apparently thought you accused it of being fancruft, where you actually wrote "not fancruft". It is hard to argue against "unnecessary", but I think it is useful for something--SmokeyJoe 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the user was trying to address all or most of the users who have expressed their thoughts here. To SmokeyJoe: By merge I am saying "no" to delete but "no" to keeping it in the article; I believe it belongs elsewhere. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 06:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you specify where you mean to have it merged?--SmokeyJoe 06:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also to SmokeyJoe, this isn't a supposed to be a vote in any direction, it's a discussion over whether or not to delete the article or ways in which it can be kept. John Reaves 06:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see this as a suitable forum to discuss "ways in which it can be kept". The threat of deletion, any day now, which is very difficult to reverse, does not create much of a positive, creative environment.--SmokeyJoe 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.